Category talk:Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Art categories organisation

Hello all,

I'm noticing a rapid expansion in the various arts categories (which is good), but also an increase in people working at cross purposes (which is less good). I'm thinking it would be a good idea to have some more discussion on the organisation of the categories.

I've already had some preliminary discussions with User_talk:Spinster and User talk:Pethan, and would suggest that we primarily sub categorise artists based on medium then nationality (if necessary),

Category:Painters -> Category:Flemish painters etc

Category:Sculptors

Category:Illustrators

Category:Installation artists

Category:Conceptual artists

Category:Video artists

Then use an independent, horizontal set of categories based on period or artistic movement.

Category:Prehistoric art

Category:Renaissance art

Category:Baroque art

Category:Romantic art

Category:Modern art

Category:Contemporary art

So Willem de Kooning would be

Category:Painters -> Category:Dutch painters, and

Category:Modern art (rather than 'Modern artists' as he is now)

and Constantin Brancusi would be

Category:Sculptors + Category:Romanian people because its not worth making Category:Romanian sculptors and

Category:Modern art

I'm sure its going to get more complicated, so it might be worth starting a Wikipedia:WikiProject for the Visual arts. -- Solipsist 20:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. The medium may need a bit of refinement. The categories in the Propaedia (Encyclopaedia Brittannica) may be of help here. For instance, the different sorts of Print making by engravers, Etchers etc. would be difficult to categorize in your scheme. Meanwhile I'm more than happy to categorize the Painters under their nationalities, where necessary :) Pethan 21:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with that category scheme. Gzornenplatz 23:11, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

OK so to muddy the waters a little - one of the things that has been worrying me is that a standard recommendation for category subdivision is to split categories by nationality as in Category:Flemish painters above. The trouble is, quite a few artists are in both Category:Painters and Category:Sculptors (or whatever). It seems wrong to nationalise one of the categories but not the other, and equally wrong to split both. Perhaps nationality should be left as another horizontal category as in Category:Flemish people -- Solipsist 23:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Categories should be refined when they get too large. Someone may well be in a nationalized painter category and in a general sculptor category if there are not enough sculptors of that nationality to justify a special category. Gzornenplatz 23:50, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Solipsist - leave nationality as a horizontal category, and split it up if you need to (eg. to continue the analogy, split Category:Flemish artists from Category:Flemish people, or even Category:Flemish sculptors if there are enough of them... ··gracefool |☺ 07:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing one thing or the other with the nationality subdivisions. I can't decide on the most useful Category subdivisions, hence opening up the discussion. -- Solipsist 07:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may be best to keep a category a single category. It seems silly to have "Category:Tall Dutch engravers" when the same article could be "Category:Tall people", "Category:Dutch people", and "Category:Engravers".

I don't know the tech side of categories, but any software like Categories should allow one to view the union of two or more categories. Hyacinth 16:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking. But it occurs to me now that although it makes logical sense to keep all the category axes independent, it would cause a problem on the Category:Dutch people page when all these artist show up. So I think I might switch to agreeing with Gracefool. Of course that really means it is a technical problem that the software does't currently segregate automatically. -- Solipsist 20:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused, what's wrong with having dutch artists listed on Dutch people? Hyacinth 21:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just that if all Dutch people were listed directly in Category:Dutch people it would end up a very big category and someone would want to subdivide it somehow. -- Solipsist 21:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I've added Category:Gothic art. It was partly intended to open up the discussion of periods before the Category:Renaissance art. Before categorising artists to the different periods I have a slight hesitation. Will the Category:Baroque art for instance be useful if there will be hundreds of artists lumped together or should we only categorise the more important ones? In other words should the aim be comprehensiveness or overview? Another question rises with the boundary figures: is it right to classify someone as Giotto under Category:Renaissance art AND Category:Gothic art? Pethan 13:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problem classifications

Whilst sorting through categorizing various artists, I've come across a number of classifications I consider to be inappropriate. There's currently an ongoing discussion over on Wikipedia talk:Categorization about how to define categories and who should be in or out. I've also started a couple of discussion on the relevant individual article talk pages, but I thought it would be a good idea to summarise the problem articles here to get some broader input. -- Solipsist 21:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Scarfe

~~Solipsist - Suggest Category:illustrators rather than painters.~~

-> Category:illustrators -- Solipsist 08:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tracey Emin

Solipsist - remove Category:British painters. Emin is already in several more appropriate arts categories and 'painter' is the opposite of how she is normally described.

[edit] Gerard Edelinck

~~Solipsist - Looks like should be either Category:Etchers or Category:Engravers~~

-> Category:Engravers -- Solipsist 08:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Charles, Prince of Wales

Paints water-colours of the Scottish Highlands when on holiday and has produced a book of collected Highlands paintings

Solipsist - suggest no arts categories since he has several far more relevant categories, or Category:Amateur painters

-> No category. -- Solipsist 08:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hobby painter, to include him and other hobbyists would overload the category and make it worthless. --garryq 01:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Oddie

UK TV presenter and ornithologist who has published several books with illustrated with his paintings of birds.

Solipsist - suggest no arts categories since it isn't a major part of his life, or Category:Amateur painters or Category:illustrators

If the book presents his paintings as works of art, he would deserve going into painters or a subcategory of painters. If the book only presents them as illustrations of the birds, then that's where he belongs. --ssd 22:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Illustrators -- Solipsist 08:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Winston Churchill

Keen amateur painter and published a book on how to paint when he retired from politics.

Solipsist - suggest no arts categories or moving to Category:Amateur painters

-> no category -- Solipsist 08:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

another hobby painter, who BTW retired from politics after at least one stroke, painting was not a major part of his life, known about mostly because of the iconic status some gave him --garryq 01:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Bean

Solipsist - ~~remove Category:painters since it doesn't seem to be a significant part of his life~~

Painting does appear to be a major part of Bean's life for the last 30 years, its also mentioned in his NASA biography, so leave category as it is. -- Solipsist 08:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Syd Barrett

remove Category:painters since it doesn't seem to be a significant part of his life -- Solipsist
(copied from the edit history of Syd Barrett) - barrett spent ~5 years making music and ~35 painting -- Pigsonthewing 17:10, 17 Aug 2004
- That's helpful. I stand corrected, but he is still not well known for being a painter. -- Solipsist 16:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - The category is not "well known painters". Andy Mabbett 16:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Actually, you know, yes it is. As far as I can tell Andy Mabbett/User:Pigsonthewing is the only person who seems to think that Category:Painters is 'anyone who has put brush to canvas' once - which frankly is most of us. I certainly did at school. If you want to claim otherwise, you should pick up the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- Solipsist 20:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That "quote" copied from the edit history, re the ~35 years spent painting, was added by YOU, pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett. You're quoting yourself! MDCore 09:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - For clarity: Andy Mabbett made the quote in the edit history of Syd Barrett, and I copied it to this discussion as it has been the only justification given. -- Solipsist 10:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Pollock

~~Solipsist - Category:Alcoholics has POV problems, although I believe it is accurate.~~

Category:Alcoholics has now been deleted via WP:CFD -- Solipsist 12:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jools Holland

removed Category:British architects. In my opinion the categorisation should be substantialized by providing evidence in the article Pethan 19:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

remove from Category:British architects. Architecture is not what Holland is known for. Also, unless he uses a different name, he's not a member of RIBA and not registered with the ARB. In the UK it is not legal to describe yourself as an architect if you are not a member of a professional body. -- Solipsist 09:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia adhere to UK law? The category is not "RIBA memebrs". Was Christopher Wren a RIBA member? Andy Mabbett 14:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well the relevant UK law is the Architects Registration Acts 1931 - 1969, and the Architects Act 1997. As Christopher Wren died in 1723 I guess he managed to dodge the registration requirements by a whisker...

Irrespective of that, helping to design a studio complex does not equate to being an architect. The best reference I can find is this on page 6 of this pdf newsletter which describes Holland as an 'enthusiastic amateur architect'. Even then the studio is a copy of a Clough Williams-Ellis design, and I doubt that Holland was the registered architect for the project. -- Solipsist 16:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, that law is not relevant (and life would be simpler for all concerned if you could try not to conduct this debate in three or more differnet places). Andy Mabbett 17:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler

Currently not categorised as a Painter. There is similar categorisation discussion as to why he is not, at Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Removal_Category_painter -- Solipsist 11:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Poetry has recently been removed from this category, but I notice Theater is still here. Is Art supposed to stand for Visual Art or the Arts in general?

Poetry is categorized as "Literature". "Literature" is categorized as "Humanities and arts", which includes "Art". "Category:Humanities and arts" seems useless to me, as it is, technically, "Categories:Humanities and arts".

Art means art. If we all want a list of visual art or artists, then it must be called that.

Hyacinth 21:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you will find there is some overlap between art and literature. Some of it is justified, some is miscategorized. Literature is, after all, the art of writing, words, and publication. For example, under Category:Writers by genre, you will find the following art related categories: Category:Art critics, Category:Poets, Category:Illustrators. All of these belong in writers by genre without a doubt; some might belong in Art too. Under Art, some of these might also belong somewhere under Category:Writers or Category:Literature: Category:Genre, Category:Novels by genre, Category:Comics, Category:Cartoonists. I think any decision that says you must pick one or the other is wrong. Some of these belong in both places. --ssd 22:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Category:Art is meant for visual arts, especially since just using art in the singular typically implies something to be seen in a gallery or museum. Category:Literature (and poetry as a subgroup) appropriately goes in Category:Arts plural, which I think should really be renamed Category:The Arts. Postdlf 19:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Art doesn't necessarily mean Visual Art, for there are works of art which are audio. It can be audio, installation, and conceptual work. I consider poetry to be a part of Art, as I am myself a "literary artist" that I do some works of art that involves text and visual textuality alone. (J.A.L.)

[edit] Demoscene

First time I've come across Demoscene as a topic. Category:Demoscene is a sub category of Art. I'm not sure that is the best place for it, but equally I'm not sure where else it should go. Perhaps as a subcat of Category:Computer art if we had one. -- Solipsist 18:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As it's about the "art" of computer demos, I stuck it in Category:Computer graphics. Postdlf 19:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] amateur painters

I started out liking the idea of the Amateur Painters classification, but upon more reflection decided that somethng like Celebrity Painters is a better term in that many of these artists [Miles Davis, Paul McCartney, Tony Bennett as well as all those named above] need this catigory BECAUSE they are famous for doing something else, not because they are amateurs. After all, most of them have published their art in books and the sales of these usually means that they are not amateurs. Carptrash 04:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The amateur is not the un-professional, or the more poorly skilled, but the one who does it for love of doing it, rather than for money. The typical famous amateur, as you say, is already famous and/or wealthy for some other reason. Amateur has the connotation of not as good, but in actuality, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Should professional painters that are more famous than others go into celebrity painters? Will there be amateur painters that are not celebrity painters that we care to list? --ssd 22:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by both arguments. Which one is likely to cause fewer POV arguments? -- Solipsist 18:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the very point of not including them in the broader painting categories because we don't want to classify individuals based on something for which they are in no way notable? It seems like the very standard of inclusion in "amateur painters" would be that painting was relatively insignificant to their lives, more like "painting hobbiests". Make a list, don't make a category. Postdlf 19:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Dance

The article Dance is part of this category. On the same token, the subcategory Category:Dance, is not. I was wondering what the consensus was regarding the arts category, and if the subcategory should be here as well? Lyellin 15:18, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

The Category:Art and subcategories is still finding its feet, and there are quite a few irregularities and omissions lying around. Most of the discussion above is from the last week or so, so feel free to chip in and help out.

As for Dance, the Category:Dance is categorised under Category:Arts, along side Category:Art and Category:Music - and that seems good to me. I would have thought the article Dance is just miscategorised, and should be in Category:Dance itself. -- Solipsist 17:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well- just didn't want to be stepping on toes here if there was a history of editing the category I didn't know about :) Alright, I'll make the change. Thanks for the quick response. Lyellin 07:10, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art periods

I've just noticed a problem with the Art period categories mentioned above. At the moment

are under Category:Arts, whilst

Category:Contemporary art

is under Category:Art and

Category:Modern art

is under Category:Art history which is under Category:Art

First, I think it would be better if they were grouped together under Category:Art history or Category:Artistic periods. Second, it seems to make sense to put artistic periods such as Renaissance and Baroque under Category:Arts since they certainly apply to several artistic concerns, such as Architecture and Music. But is this true of all artistic periods? The History of painting article splits the Renaissance into various sub classes such as Early Renaissance painting and I'm not sure there is an Early Renaissance period in music. A similar question must occur with artistic movements Category:Minimalism certainly crosses borders, but does op art? -- Solipsist 18:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CfD discussion

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The consensus was to keep the category, so this is an archive of the discussion. Seven keep votes and one merge. Note: There does seem to be the idea that a more descriptive name for either Category:Art or Category:Arts would be useful. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the protocol here? Has anyone volunteered to remove the CfD designation from this Category? Has anyone volunteered to scrub the articles if mop-up is required? Ancheta Wis 01:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) I can do this if the consensus reflects this and no one else wishes to step forward.

Removed CfD notice per the discussion in October 2004. Ancheta Wis 06:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Art

It boggles the mind that Category:Arts and Category:Art both exist, and that one is a subcategory of the other, but they both cover the territory of all art(s). Some people think of "visual art" when they say "art", so perhaps "arts" should be used to mean art-in-general, and "visual art" (not merely "art") to mean visual art. I therefore propose the following:

Merge Arts into the contents and introductory text of Category:Arts (redirecting there after the merge).
Create Category:Visual art under Category:Arts, and move appropriate subcategories and articles there.
Merge Category:Art into Category:Arts and Category:Visual art (redirecting to Category:Arts after the merge).

-- Beland 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also note reorganization discussion(s) on Category talk:Art which should be preserved if they have not been implemented. -- Beland 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not surprised if you are confused, but it is probably best to leave alone. Category:Art is in practice Category:Visual art, but you don't want to call it that because some of what contemporary artists get up to isn't purely visual any more. Category:Arts is the umbrella which includes all the arts, including music and theatre. -- Solipsist 01:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep Category:Art. I've been thinking Category:Arts should be changed to Category:The Arts, however. Postdlf 02:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Arts to Category:The Arts sounds like a good idea to me. -- Solipsist 15:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep - If it could be reduced to something too logical it would lose the quality which makes art valuable. --wayland 14:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep both. They make sense this way. Filiocht 14:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Keep both. A more descriptive name for Category:Arts, relative to Category:Art, would be nice. Walden 00:25, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Keep both. --ssd 19:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep both Juggling is an Art, but is not usually considered Art for instance.Pedant 02:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

It seems like Category:Art has now been moved to Category:Arts. Can the CFD text be taken off Category:Art?

Then, it seems like subcategories like Origami and perhaps Color should move to Category:Arts. Clubmarx 19:24, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Change both I agree with Solipsist that the term Visual Art is a bit outdated but it is still relevant. IMO "Art" as a term encompassing techniques such as sculpture, painting or conceptual art tend to be too wide and easily confused with "Arts". I suggest with my limited knowledge of Wikipedia categorisation that category:art be merged into category:visual arts and then be deleted and that category:arts be renamed to category:the arts - Brunberg 16:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have created Category:The Arts with a redirect from Category:The arts — Jonathan Bowen 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art and Visual arts and design

I just stumbled across the whole art categorization conversations since I was looking for answers about lists and categories. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and started working around List of furniture designers.

I see Category:Design, Category:Visual arts, etc. and am not sure what to follow and don't want to work at cross-purposed with others who are trying to categorize art stuff. Is there a place where I can see what categories are going to stay and so forth?

Also, just curious, are the Dewey decimal or Lib of Congress classifications being used? Clubmarx 00:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Removed CfD notice per the discussion in October 2004. Ancheta Wis 06:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also find it quite confusing that a category:Visual arts exists which seems to be parallell to category:art but less comprehensive, specially considering the earlier discussion. Brunberg 23:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art categories

A page is created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art categories to plan art categories. Previous discussions are at Category talk:Art, Category talk:Visual arts and Category talk:Artists (there are likely more that I haven't found). The current schema on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art categories combines much of what is in previous discussions. --sparkit (talk) 15:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge

Is anyone up for merging the Visual arts category back into the Art category? -->>sparkit|TALK<< 03:42, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Is the problem that newer editors aren't following the organisation with Category:Visual arts and so are placing visual art releated articles in Category:art? -- Solipsist 05:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Doh! Of course I should explain! It is the redundancy of the sub-categories, and to a degree the placement of articles. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 16:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arts

We do need a way to depict Skills, Abstraction, Culture and "Humanities and art", but "Arts" is the wrong name for that category. Maybe "The creative process" or something like that. -- Fplay 05:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Large sub-category" and navigation

In my opinion, "Performing arts" and "Visual art" should go to the beginning of the "Art" sub-categories but not "Plastic Arts". The two former cats do not overlap (except for Dance, maybe), but the latter does not really assist as a navigational aid. -- Fplay 22:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat myself on the back...

Look at how small and beautiful the organization of "Art" is now in its sub-cats. That did not happen by itself. Art now deserves to be in the Top 10. -- Fplay 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space:

[[Category:Top 10| Art]]

It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the A block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category redirect

I've added the category redirect to Category:Visual arts per the CfD discussion May 19, 2006/ Clubmarx 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.